NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6359812" data-attributes="member: 996">You're really talking about a specific segment.  There's a segment of the fanbase that enthusiastically adopts every new edition without question - they're the ones generating the most glowing, least critical positives, right now, just like they did early in the release of 4e and 3e.There's a segment of the fanbase that gives each edition a fair chance and judges it on it's merits (I'm guessing, a pretty darn small segment).There's a segment that views each new edition with suspicion, but eventually comes around.There's a segment that cleaves off and sticks with the last edition, each time a new edition comes out.And, yes, there's generally been a segment that might nerdrage at the slightest provocation. Not so much, really.  Those were mostly things that edition warriors latched onto, but they were either nonsense or would require a much thinner skin than the fanbase has displayed before or since, and didn't contribute to the short run so much as create an opportunity for Paizo to clone 3.5 with Pathfinder.  But you did catch a real issue in that list of edition-war-era talking points:The failure of the on-lines tools was not just a PR embarrassment, but a fatal blow to the business model of D&D at the time - DDI was supposed to generate an unprecedented, MMO-like revenue stream that would push D&D to revenue levels not just many times what it had done before, but several times those of the whole TTRPG industry, in total.   When it failed in development, the D&D line was essentially (pi) doomed.  Fortunately, Hasbro changed policy and failure to achieve 'core brand' status didn't result in the line being shelved, just re-booted yet again.  Now, happily, Hasbro considers all of WotC (stodgy, low-revenue D&D, and high-flying CCGs) one unit, and is delighted with it's overall performance, so 5e is assured a normal run, even if it were to deliver only a fraction of the revenue of past eds, or fail to so much as un-seat Pathfinder.  Unless Hasbro has another change of leadership/philosophy, or CCGs suddenly tank. Here, we're in complete agreement. Mechanical improvements and innovations have been rolled back, and any new ones have been /very/ cautious and measured in implementation, and care has been taken not to ruffle the feathers of those who reacted so badly.  More importantly, D&D no longer faces any meaningful business challenges.  WotC can drop it a few resources to keep it going while basking in the glow of it's CCGs' successes.  There's no fight for survival, no need to prove itself as a viable IP - basically a free ride at this point.  Which is great...  Seems unlikely that specific problem will show up.  The monsters I've seen in the pdfs, so far, have been only a little tougher - and a little more harder-hitting - relative to the lightning-fast playtest.  5e will likely prove a game heavily weighted towards roll-overs and TPKs, but artful DMs will be able to walk the tightrope in between.  Worst case, as it succumbs to the inevitable power creep, it may turn into "rocket tag."  The only danger of play really slowing down lies in the complex rules for casting, and comparatively vague rules in general.  Rules arguments, if the DM isn't decisive and firm (to put it politely), could eat into session time far worse than grinding through a solo's last 100 hps.  That and the usual suspects of playability outside 'sweet spot' levels, inaccessibility to new players, class & encounter imbalances, and so forth.Really, the same mechanical and play problems D&D had over most of it's history - and never enough to stop it from succeeding on the basis of name-recognition and loyalty.</blockquote>

Verification